[From Context on-line (University of Tennessee, Knoxville), February 1999. Original URL: ur.utenn.edu/context/feb99context/features/admineval.html]
Faculty Evaluation of Administrators: A Report
BY DR. KATHY E. BOHSTEDT
Chair, Faculty Senate Standing Committee to Oversee Evaluation of Adminstrators
(Please send comments about this report to kbohsted@utk.edu)
The Standing Committee to Oversee the Evaluation of Administrators (SCOEA) was created by the Faculty Senate with the support of the Chancellor in 1992. In 1993, 24 administrators were evaluated, including the Chancellor, several vice chancellors, deans, and department heads. The process was temporarily halted in 1994 to iron out some initial difficulties, then resumed in spring 95. To date, some 80 administrators have been notified they were to be evaluated, committees formed, and self- studies solicited. Of those, only 46 have been completed.
I joined the Standing Committee in Fall 97. There are seven members of SCOEA serving three-year terms, of which two are appointed by the chancellor, and five by the president of the Faculty Senate. (Current SCOEA members are Randall Bresee, Textile, Retail and Consumer Science; Norma Cook, Speech Communications and Special Projects; Kevin Hahn, Comparative Medicine and Veterinary Medicine; Robert Heller, Journalism; Denise Jackson, Industrial Engineering; Kula Misra, Geology; and myself, Kathy Bohstedt, Philosophy.) At the end of my first year (Spring '98) the Faculty Senate president and the chancellor invited me to chair. I agreed to serve a two-year term.
A typical administrative review goes like this: We have a list, generated by Human Resources, of all administrators. We select names in the fall/spring, and notify those people and their supervisors that they will be reviewed the following spring/fall. We ask the administrator under review to write a self- study, for which we provide models from previous evaluations; they are given a full semester to complete the self-study document. Working from a list of tenured faculty who have agreed to serve on review teams, we invite faculty members to chair upcoming reviews. Once the chair for a particular review is in place, committee members are sought. When committees are finalized, the administrator and supervisor are notified, and a member of SCOEA is appointed as liaison to supervise the process.
In the ideal case, the review is fairly simple. The administrator turns in his/her self-study. The review team chair schedules a meeting of the review team, the administrator, and the supervisor. At this meeting, the review team and administrator agree on one of the four questionnaire forms we provide, and on a list of staff, faculty, students, and outside constituents to be polled. The administrator is directed to provide a list of mailing labels for those people. The labels and the questionnaire form are forwarded to the Office of Institutional Research, which sends out the questionnaire and tabulates the results. The review team invites those receiving the questionnaire to meet with the review team in a private session. Our secretary types and then shreds the notes from these meetings to preserve anonymity. The review team receives the questionnaire results and interview notes, and then writes its final report. The Standing Committee approves the final report, and sends it to the administrator and his/her supervisor. If the review uncovers problems, the chair of the team meets with the administrator and supervisor to formulate a plan of action, which is forwarded to the chancellor, who is responsible for seeing to its implementation.
Most cases are not ideal. When I took over as chair last summer, I reviewed the history of the evaluation process and discovered some serious problems, based on the numbers of reviews that were stalled, terminated, or never begun. Of the 24 department heads reviewed since 1993, only 16 reviews are complete. Three of the remaining eight have stepped down. In another case, the questionnaires were never sent out. In another, the department head was cooperative, but the review team never met. In two cases, the final reports are currently being written, and in another, the review team is just getting started. In the last three cases, the reviews were begun in Fall 97 and are thus a semester behind schedule.
Of 43 deans and directors to be evaluated, only 16 evaluations are complete. The stories of noncompletion are again mixed. Four directors refused to cooperate with the process. One dean stepped down before the process began. Four associate deans were not reviewed because we were unable to get them to write their self-studies. One review is simply recorded "cancelled," with no reason given. One, begun in Spring '96, is now moving forward. One associate dean changed jobs. The remaining reviews are underway, but some of them have been going on for two years.
Of fourteen vice chancellors and associate vice chancellors, nine are complete. (I am counting the chancellor and his executive assistant in this category.) The other five reviews were cancelled due to lack of cooperation. These five will be evaluated in Spring or Fall '99. The chancellor has intervened to ensure their cooperation on the next round.
These numbers are discouraging and may appear to give credence to the widespread faculty perception that this process doesn't work and is a general waste of time for faculty asked to serve on review teams. However, this is the only process in place whereby faculty evaluate administrators. Faculty are evaluated by students and their peers--both inside and outside the University--žas well as by administrators. Before 1993, administrators were evaluated only by their immediate supervisors. If faculty are to play a role in the daily governance of the University, we must be empowered to learn what administrators do and how they do it, and to discover by broad polling how well they are doing their jobs.
Last summer I met with the chancellor and his staff, the Faculty Senate president, the secretary to SCOEA, and staff from the Office of Institutional Research to discuss ways to streamline and facilitate our procedures. We completely revised the manual to be used by those involved. We also revised the role of the SCOEA. Each of the seven appointed members of SCOEA is responsible for supervising from six to eight on-going reviews. We are making every attempt to keep in close touch with the chairs of review teams and to resolve problems as soon as they arise. At our first meeting this fall, we decided that the poor completion rate justified our spending this semester in three tasks. One: discover why reviews failed. Two: identify and correct SCOEA procedures that contributed to these failures. Three: redouble our efforts to revive reviews begun since Fall '96.
We have made considerable progress on the first two projects. On project three, I am happy to report that the five Spring '98 reviews are nearly completed. All but one of the six Fall '97 reviews is complete or nearly so. The remaining one has been revived and will take place in Spring '99. Of the six Spring '97 reviews, three are complete and the other three are well underway. Of the nine Fall 96 reviews, two are complete, one administrator has retired, and three reviews are underway. The other three administrators who were noncooperative are scheduled for future evaluations.
Below I have listed the names of those whose reviews are complete and on file in the Director of Finance Office, P260 Andy Holt Tower. Anyone may view these documents by appointment. (Call our secretary, Cindy Lee, at 4-2247 to set up an appointment.) Your privacy will be protected.
Completed Administrative Evaluations
Note that some of these individuals have changed jobs within the University, have left the University, or have retired since their evaluations were completed.
Charles Aikens, Head/Industrial Engineering
William Bugg, Head/Physics
Camille Hazuer, Director/Affirmative Action
Paula Kaufman, Dean/Library
Susan Martin, Head/Classics
Jack Williams, Vice Chancellor/Development & Alumni Affairs
Michael Benson, Head/Sociology
Allen Carroll, Head/English
Betsey Creekmore, Vice Chancellor/Space
James Crook, Director/Journalism
Nancy Fair, Head/Textiles
Charles Hamilton, Head/Health
Fred Harris, Vice Chancellor/Computing
Sydney Jumper, Head/Geography
LaVerne Lindsey, Vice Chancellor/Continuing Education
Warren Neel, Dean /Business
Larry Ratner, Dean/Arts & Sciences
Charles Reynolds, Head/Religious Studies
K.C. Reddy, Dean/UT Space Institute
Philip Scheurer, Vice Chancellor/Administration
Bill Snyder, Chancellor
Dwight Teeter, Dean/Communications
Ramsey Valentine, Director/Administrative Computing
Patrick Carney, Head/Audiology
Edwin Gleason, Dean/UT Space Institute
Wade Meadows, Director/Bookstore
C.W. Minkel, Vice Chancellor/Graduate School
Ed Schilling, Head/Botany
Jan Simek, Head/Anthropology
Michael Singletary, Associate Dean/Graduate School
Ronald Taylor, Head/Advertising
Maxine Thompson, Director/Re-entry
Richard Wirtz, Dean/Law
Marianne Woodside, Executive Assistant/Chancellor
Fred Young, Director/Health
Jackie DeJonge, Dean/Human Ecology
Aubrey Mitchell, Associate Dean/Library
Greg Reed, Head/Civil Engineering
Glennon Rowell, Associate Dean/Education
Joseph Spruiell, Head/Materials Science & Engineering
Connie Steel, Head/Family Studies
Denise Barlow, Director/Finance
John Peters, Vice Chancellor/Academic Affairs
Thomas Ayers, Adean/Admissions
Diana Lopez, Director/Grad Admissions
Stephen Richards, Director/Transportation Center
Reviews To Be Completed Very Shortly
Mark Alexander, Director/University Center
Norvel Burkett, Associate Dean and Director/Conferences
Jeff Chapman, Director/McClung Museum
Thomas E. Davis, Director/Architecture
W.F. Harris, Director/Biology Division
Carol Kasworm, Associate Dean/Education
Philip Gary Klukken, Director/Student Counsel
Don Reed, Director/Research Centers Business Office
Jerry Stoneking, Dean/Engineering
John Koontz, Head/Biochemistry
Reviews Scheduled for Spring 99
Marleen Davis, Dean/Architecture
Nina Elliot, Assistant Vice Chancellor/Academic Affairs
Ray Hamilton, Executive Director/Budget and Finance
Jan Howard, Director/Disability Services
Martha Masengill, Associate Vice Chancellor/Development
Marian Moffett, Associate to the Vice Chancellor /Academic Affairs
John Muldowny, Associate Dean/Evening School
Warren Neel, Dean/Business
Jane Redmond, Assistant Vice Chancellor/Minority Student Affairs
Tim Rogers, Dean of Students
Keith Stanga, Head/Accounting
Frederick L. Stiles, Assistant Dean/Admissions and Records
James Grubb, Executive Director/University Housing Administration
To offer suggestions or comments about this web site, please click here.
